A farewell to DrugScope
Article Type: Editorial From: Drugs and Alcohol Today, Volume 15, Issue 2.
An obituary is a necessary but difficult thing to write, even when the loss we are mourning and the life we remember is that of an organisation. The author’s first concern is giving comfort to the living, “with phrases like it was a painless parting”,or, “they really lived life to the full”. Neither would be appropriate, but one consoling thought, perhaps, is that DrugScope has had such a profound effect on all things drug related, like treatment, education and awareness, that it had outlived its own usefulness. Much of the work on treatment standards became “nationalised” with the creation of the National Treatment Agency. University departments up and down the country have carved out niches on the different aspects of social drug research and thereby obviated the need for an organisation with research services. Organisations like the International Network of People Using Drugs or Harm Reduction International are now alternative fora where the voice of drug and service users can be heard. And since drug treatment has grown into a third sector industry whose leading brands employ their own policy officers,what role was left for DrugScope and what was its mandate?
To its sponsors at the Department of Health and the Home Office, DrugScope was more than a home for gritty reportage and mediator with the reality of drugs and drug users. It was a valued source for advice in this trickiest of policy areas. And particularly in view of the multiple pressures building up around the other core functions, DrugScope had an opportunity to assert its unique position and demonstrate its value. To do that though, would have meant stepping ahead of the crowd and catching the zeitgeist, just as it had in the 1980s and 1990s, when its predecessor organisations – the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence and the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse (SCODA) – championed harm reduction and contributed to national policies which led to the successful reduction in HIV transmission.
Instead of maintaining the edge and pushing for radical policy reform during the good years of rising prosperity with an incumbent government committed to reform, the organisation opted for caution and conventionality. In terms of organisational psychology this was an interesting response to success. It was only by breaking with convention that one of its two precursors, the SCODA,had gained the ear of government in the first place. Now that the message had been heard and approved, the new organisation fled headlong for the centre ground.
The quest for respect ushered in organisational changes including an extra layer of senior management who were removed from activities and lacking in specialised knowledge, to oversee strategy and safeguard finances. Internally, DrugScope morphed from an egalitarian working culture that had been user-led and problem-focused, into a tight machine, with separate departments,lines of reporting, budgetary forecasts, a rigid hierarchy, and top level salaries worth fighting over. Externally, more and more effort went into chasing contracts that were needed to pay for the superstructure of directors and support staff.
This unsustainable situation was, inevitably, followed by a period of retrenchment and a drawn-out period of down-sizing. The focus now shifted to key tasks and the nurturing of in-house talent. Moving out of its Loman Street property, a much smaller DrugScope, re-connected with its core values and continued to produce one of the best information services on drugs anywhere,support the treatment sector during the “recovery agenda” and engage with government on policy process. Unfortunately the finance department continued to underperform, stoking up problems in the long term.
In policy terms it meant staying with the line “that drug policy is bad, but legalisation is not an option”. This was a tired and cautious message from a supposed centre of excellence. At this stage, having clarified focus and regained some credibility in the field, and being on the inside track, with good relations with Whitehall and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, DrugScope could have been the critical friend advising a new coalition government on the benefits of regulated cannabis markets. It is not inconceivable for the UK to have joined Colorado and Uruguay in the vanguard of sensible drug policy reform,capitalising on UK expertise and practical experience across the sector. Alas, a different course was taken, sensible in appearance and with full support of senior management, but one that led ultimately to the organisation’s irrelevance and demise. Former DrugScopers including the current DAT editor are saddened but not surprised. But grief, consolation and the relief of the living, are not the only emotions that erupt into the obituary process. There is also anger about missing the opportunity for turning this critical mass of drug sector know-how into an edgy consultancy and lobbying firm to blaze a trail towards more sensible policy pastures, anger compounded at learning that DrugScope cannot continue its work, particularly its unparalleled information and electronic library services.
The decision to liquidate, when it came, was perhaps no surprise, although it is unclear whether alternative models to ensure the continuation of a slimmed-down DrugScope were adequately explored or identified. There are interesting lessons in this about the configuration of the oddly named charity sector and the inappropriate adoption of business management techniques. But for the drugs field, from treatment, to policy reform, to all of us with a sheer fascination for the complex relationship between humanity and its substances this a very unsatisfactory outcome.
Back at the ranch, “be prepared for change and make no assumptions” is advice often preferred but not always heard. In knowledge terms, it can be difficult to, first, recognise and then, second, accept that some of the “givens” on which we base our thinking and analysis may, after all, be inaccurate, or that one approach and direction may have equally valid alternatives. Hence,perhaps, the term “a contested concept”.
So it is too in practical terms. Our plans to publish issues dedicated to user voice and education and prevention have had to be amended as the year creeps – no, marches – on. We will now be publishing papers on these themes as they are received by the editorial team and approved by reviewers.
We will also continue to publish papers on the new psychoactive substances. We know that there are many appearing on the market and in analysis and forensics laboratories, but their impact and prevalence remain unclear. NSPs are “popular” in much of the media and coverage there can give the impression, once again with a transgressional behaviour, that “everybody is doing it”. By contrast, the chair of the UK’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs struck a more cautionary note about prevalence and demand in response to questions at an ACMD open session last autumn.
We are also interested in keeping a watching eye on the current developments around naloxone; and the newly emerging pharma therapies for the treatment of hepatitis C. Both appear to be pharmacologically proven and ready, so in the UK the next stages will be around access and use, with the implications this has for licensing, approval and commissioning. The first paper,on take-home naloxone, appears in this issue.
The stakeholders’ issue which Denmark’s Vibeke Frank Asmussen (va@crf.au.dk) is guest-editing is progressing well for a forthcoming issue. Polly Radcliffe’s mailto:(polly.radcliffe@kcl.ac.uk – please note change of e-address since Issue 1) guest-edited issue will appear early in 2016. The response to her “call for papers” has been impressive.
We are making use of the contacts and connections – and linguistic abilities – the editorial team has built up over the decades of working in the drugs and alcohol field. In addition to Vibeke Frank Asmussen’s role at the Centre for Drug and Alcohol Research at the Århus University, Blaine Stothard has commissioned one piece which describes the grass-roots activity in Copenhagen which led to the setting up of the legislative frame-work which allows drug consumption rooms to operate in Denmark; and a paper which describes the Danish SSP approach to, amongst other aims, drug prevention amongst young people.
In this issue we welcome the return of the “Legal Eye” section compiled by Niamh Eastwood of Release. This is a reminder of the extent to which current UK drugs policy has become entwined with the criminal justice system.
As ever, we welcome papers and contributions from practitioners, researchers and analysts. Guidelines for authors can be found at www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/dat.htm
Axel Klein and Blaine Stothard
